3 ms·

"As he's a visible spokesperson, that means his blog content is part of his overall role, and not something that can be treated in isolation." I agree this is

"As he's a visible spokesperson, that means his blog content is part of his overall role, and not something that can be treated in isolation." I agree this is de facto the case. It's kind of sad, though, and I don't think the world needs to be this way. There should be a way for an e.g. CEO or similar to have a life and persona outside of a job.

jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
There are various ways to do that. Plenty of famous people manage to figure it out. That's not what RMS was after. He's putting this stuff up on his blog, which he uses for activism, not abstract philosophical inquiry.
- NoImmatureAdHom 6y ago
  ...yeah, and activism should be an acceptable (albeit insufferable) part of one's non-work persona.
- andrewzah 6y ago
  "How dare people have opinions on politics or society on their personal web blogs". How is this any different than telling celebrities to pipe down, as if people aren't human anymore once they become famous?
  - jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
    When you have the megaphone of fame in your hand, you can't pretend it doesn't exist. That kind of influence is an enormous privilege, one that nearly everyone that has it has had to chase aggressively their entire careers if not lives. You cannot pretend a celebrity pontificating into a camera that is broadcasting to 100's of millions of people is the same thing as someone's personal weblog that no one ever reads. You can't abstract or generalize to "principles" in that sense over this. Once you're famous you have to own that, or take yourself out of the spotlight. As I said in another comment, there are many famous people who've figured out how to self actualize their lives without attracting attention.
    - andrewzah 6y ago
      People also make the choice to cling onto famous peoples' words. They could just as well not do that. > That kind of influence is an enormous privilege, one that nearly everyone that has it has had to chase aggressively their entire careers if not lives. I don't think RMS did that, and I don't think "nearly everyone that has it has had to chase [it]". Some people do, and others just... become (in)famous in their respective fields. Imagine just wanting to be good at basketball, getting some of level of fame, and then just hearing "shut up and dribble", etc. > there are many famous people who've figured out how to self actualize their lives without attracting attention And how does one go about this without e.g. not saying anything at all? Discussing politics or societal ills is -always- going to irk some people. It's really not fair to say that, because someone now has some level of reach, that they have to basically say nothing at all. Why is there no personal responsibility or accountability? I'm going to assume the controversial stance here that people just don't raise children right, to not dwell on peoples' words just because they're "famous". And that is a larger societal issue than celebrities simply having opinions as a human being.
      - goodpoint 6y ago
        > People also make the choice to cling onto famous peoples' words. They could just as well not do that. We cannot change the behavior of every person in the world. But we can change the people who represent the FOSS community to the world.
    - ebcode 6y ago
      > You cannot pretend a celebrity pontificating into a camera that is broadcasting to 100's of millions of people is the same thing as someone's personal weblog that no one ever reads. I'd say it's getting harder and harder to tell the difference.
      - jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
        Who arises to that status is becoming more organic, which is probably a good thing in my book, but access to the top tiers of success/influence remains closely guarded by the people with the power to do so.
  - dwaltrip 6y ago
    People can say whatever they want. If you don’t like someone’s specific critique, tell us why instead just saying it is bad to critique famous people. Being a public figure has a lot of downsides. Maybe society could, as a whole, be a bit nicer to public figures (and everyone else for that matter). But that is a bigger ask. And it’s not exactly clear how to achieve that.
goodpoint 6y ago
> There should be a way for an e.g. CEO or similar to have a life and persona outside of a job. It's called private life for a reason: it's not in public. But when acting as a public speaker and spokeperson you should be acting accordingly. Weird remarks about age of consent on public mailing lists, or hitting on every young woman at a conference or eating skin from a foot in front of a whole audience are all behaviors that put the whole FOSS movement in a bad light.
- goodpoint 6y ago
  Downvoting without commenting... interesting. I'd love to see what contributions to FLOSS the downvoters have achieved.

jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago

There are various ways to do that. Plenty of famous people manage to figure it out. That's not what RMS was after. He's putting this stuff up on his blog, which he uses for activism, not abstract philosophical inquiry.

NoImmatureAdHom 6y ago
...yeah, and activism should be an acceptable (albeit insufferable) part of one's non-work persona.
andrewzah 6y ago
"How dare people have opinions on politics or society on their personal web blogs". How is this any different than telling celebrities to pipe down, as if people aren't human anymore once they become famous?
- jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
  When you have the megaphone of fame in your hand, you can't pretend it doesn't exist. That kind of influence is an enormous privilege, one that nearly everyone that has it has had to chase aggressively their entire careers if not lives. You cannot pretend a celebrity pontificating into a camera that is broadcasting to 100's of millions of people is the same thing as someone's personal weblog that no one ever reads. You can't abstract or generalize to "principles" in that sense over this. Once you're famous you have to own that, or take yourself out of the spotlight. As I said in another comment, there are many famous people who've figured out how to self actualize their lives without attracting attention.
  - andrewzah 6y ago
    People also make the choice to cling onto famous peoples' words. They could just as well not do that. > That kind of influence is an enormous privilege, one that nearly everyone that has it has had to chase aggressively their entire careers if not lives. I don't think RMS did that, and I don't think "nearly everyone that has it has had to chase [it]". Some people do, and others just... become (in)famous in their respective fields. Imagine just wanting to be good at basketball, getting some of level of fame, and then just hearing "shut up and dribble", etc. > there are many famous people who've figured out how to self actualize their lives without attracting attention And how does one go about this without e.g. not saying anything at all? Discussing politics or societal ills is -always- going to irk some people. It's really not fair to say that, because someone now has some level of reach, that they have to basically say nothing at all. Why is there no personal responsibility or accountability? I'm going to assume the controversial stance here that people just don't raise children right, to not dwell on peoples' words just because they're "famous". And that is a larger societal issue than celebrities simply having opinions as a human being.
    - goodpoint 6y ago
      > People also make the choice to cling onto famous peoples' words. They could just as well not do that. We cannot change the behavior of every person in the world. But we can change the people who represent the FOSS community to the world.
  - ebcode 6y ago
    > You cannot pretend a celebrity pontificating into a camera that is broadcasting to 100's of millions of people is the same thing as someone's personal weblog that no one ever reads. I'd say it's getting harder and harder to tell the difference.
    - jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
      Who arises to that status is becoming more organic, which is probably a good thing in my book, but access to the top tiers of success/influence remains closely guarded by the people with the power to do so.
- dwaltrip 6y ago
  People can say whatever they want. If you don’t like someone’s specific critique, tell us why instead just saying it is bad to critique famous people. Being a public figure has a lot of downsides. Maybe society could, as a whole, be a bit nicer to public figures (and everyone else for that matter). But that is a bigger ask. And it’s not exactly clear how to achieve that.

goodpoint 6y ago

> There should be a way for an e.g. CEO or similar to have a life and persona outside of a job. It's called private life for a reason: it's not in public. But when acting as a public speaker and spokeperson you should be acting accordingly. Weird remarks about age of consent on public mailing lists, or hitting on every young woman at a conference or eating skin from a foot in front of a whole audience are all behaviors that put the whole FOSS movement in a bad light.

goodpoint 6y ago
Downvoting without commenting... interesting. I'd love to see what contributions to FLOSS the downvoters have achieved.